Let’s face it: Argentina is not an easy country to understand. But on second thought, neither is the world. It was Walter Benjamin who said: “The ‘state of emergency’ in which we live is not the exception but the rule.” He was not referring to Argentina, but…Joel Horowitz, a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania and an experienced observer of Latin America and Argentina, has just published an important contribution to the country’s complex and tumultuous history: “Argentina’s Radical Party and Popular Mobilizations 1916—1930.” When asked by Jaquemate how he became interested in the part of America south of the Río Grande, he said:
“My interest in Latin America and especially in Argentina arose from a series of unconnected and fortuitous circumstances. My father (Morris A. Horowitz) was an economist who taught for many years at Northeastern University in Boston, Massachusetts. In 1961 he was contracted by the Ford Foundation to help the Instituto Torcuato Di Tella do a study of Argentina’s future demands for skilled labor. It was the type of study that he did in the United States.
“And so you came to Argentina…”
“Yes. We spent 14 months living in Buenos Aires and I had a wonderful time, though how much I really learned is difficult to say. I was 12 years old. We lived in Vicente López and I went to the American school, so I actually did not learn that much Spanish. We lived on what latter became an important street, Gaspar Campos (Perón on his return in the 1970s lived on the street). It was the period when ex-President Arturo Frondizi was overthrown. For a boy who had not been out of the USA except to go to Canada, it was a very different world and one which I enjoyed very much.”
“Then you returned to the U.S.”
“When I entered the University of Pennsylvania in 1967, I was planning to study US history. By my second year, however, I was getting restless. I liked history and wanted to be an historian but I could not see myself spending the rest of my life studying the history of the US. It did not excite me enough. Luckily, I had made a fairly silly decision when I entered the University.
“What was that?”
“Instead of completing my language requirement with one semester of French (I had taken French in high school), I signed up for six semesters of Spanish. After four semesters of Spanish, I convinced my parents to send me to the University of Arizona’s summer school in Guadalajara, Mexico. It completely altered my life. First of all, I met my wife—a North American—who was also studying there. I also found Mexico and its history to be fascinating and decided that I wanted to study Latin American history. When I returned home to Penn, there was no professor there who did Latin American history but one of the US historians, Richard Beeman, actually knew a fair amount and he had me do a significant quantity of reading. I escaped having to take introductory classes which probably helped me keep my interest.”
“And then graduate studies…”
“I applied to graduate schools in a fairly random fashion and I was totally unsure what part of Latin America I wanted to study. I decided to go to the University of California, Berkeley largely because it was Berkeley and it was 1971 and I thought that it would be exciting intellectually and otherwise. I was not wrong. The first semester there I took a course from a professor who had come that semester, the Argentine historian Tulio Halperín Donghi, on the history of Argentina. I had the privilege to listen to a good part of, arguably Tulio’s best book the year before it was published, Revolución y Guerra: Formación de una élite dirigente en la Argentina criolla, in English and delivered as he always does without notes. I only realized this, a number of years later, when I read it in Spanish and I could hear Tulio’s voice talking to the class. To use an expression of the time, it was a mind blowing experience. I decided to study Argentine history and I was lucky enough to work with Tulio who has certainly been one of the most influential Argentine historians of the past half century. I am lucky enough to count him now as a friend and I must say he still influences me.”
“So you took a closer look at Argentina…”
“That’s right. My doctorial dissertation was a study of the labor movement in the 1930s and unlike previous studies it examined not confederations but unions. Ultimately it became a book Argentine Unions, the State and the Rise of Perón, 1930-1945 (Berkeley: Institute of International Studies, University of California, Berkeley, 1990) which was fairly recently translated as Los sindicatos, el estado y el surgimiento de Perón, 1930-1946 (Buenos Aires: Universidad de Tres de Febrero, 2004). Despite doing my dissertation research in what can only be called troubled times, los años de plomo, 1975-76, I have developed a real love for Argentina and all my research projects have been on Argentina. But after finishing my doctorate, I had jobs in a number of different universities from Berkeley to Harvard and then ended up at St. Bonaventure, which is a small Catholic university in a rural area of New York State. It is closer to Toronto than to New York City.”
“What is the general thesis of your new book? “
“My recent book Argentina’s Radical Party and Popular Mobilization, 1916-1930 (University Park: Penn State University Press, 2008) focuses on how the governments of the Radical Party during the presidencies of Hipólito Yrigoyen and of Marcelo T. de Alvear mobilized popular support, particularly in the city of Buenos Aires. It shows how that mobilization helped set the stage for a military coup and shaped politics for decades.”
“What kind of person was Yrigoyen?”
“In my book I examine how Yrigoyen constructed an image of himself as a man who cared about the average Argentine and how he had himself pictured as almost a secular saint. He became for many the embodiment both of the party and of the nation itself. Almost a cult of personality developed around him. This produced a reaction that coalesced around Alvear, who failed to rally much popular support, in part because he did not decide in what direction to take his government. Traditional views of the popularity of the Radicals have accorded a large role to patronage. Although it did exist and the book examines the increase in the number of government employees, much was due to the enlarging role of the state. Moreover, all political factions shared in the spoils and therefore it becomes impossible to attribute popularity to clientelism.”
“What were the policies of Radicalism?”
“The Radical administrations appealed to the popular classes through policies called obrerismo. Although vague and paternalistic, it represented a change in attitude. For the first time governments accepted the working class, treating it with respect. The government followed two separate strategies. Under Yrigoyen its policies were highly personalistic, depending upon personal ties to union leaders. Yrigoyen’s approach reflected traditional styles of Argentine politics. Alvear attempted to channel the union movement using labor laws and the bureaucracy. However, he too maintained personal ties. Despite Alvear’s reputation as being conservative, it was during Alvear’s presidency that railroaders’ conditions improved greatly with government support and their unions developed a style that they maintained for decades. “
“How long did it take to write the book?”
“The research for the book was done over approximately 15 or 16 years. Much of it was done during a few short trips to Argentina. Research in Argentina is always difficult. Books or documents are not available or difficult to locate. But there are usually ways to get done what needs to get done. I was lucky enough to be able to use the Harvard University library which has an unbelievable collection. I remember standing in Biblioteca Nacional waiting for some material and chatting with a fellow researcher who was lamenting the then unavailability of the Radical Party paper, La Epoca . I had to tell him that I had been reading it at Harvard on microfilm. It was embarrassing that I could read it in the US and it was then impossible or at least hard to find in Argentina.”
“How have your readers reacted to the book?”
“The reaction from the few readers so far has been quite positive but there have been no reviews yet. I must say what in the long run matters to me is the reception of the book in Argentina. There people really know the history. I also have been much more influenced by Argentine historians than ones who write in English. I hope that I can arrange a translation quickly.
“Making generalizations about Argentine history would appear to be a bit risky.”
“Although Argentina’s history is full of twists and turns, I am not sure that it is any more dangerous to make generalizations about it than it is elsewhere. All history is full of surprises (After all two years ago I would have never believed that the US would have elected an African-American as president in my life time. I believed that too many people were too prejudiced). Also beneath the twists and turns of Argentine history are certain continuities. In both the Radical and Peronist parties there is a tradition of a single leader. There are periods of conflict when a leader weakens or dies but always one man seems to emerge. For example in the Radical Party it goes, Yrigoyen, Alvear, Balbín, Alfonsín and then chaos as Alfonsín holds on to some power but is unable to fully control the party. For the Peronists, it is Perón, Menem, and now Kirchner. One could go on.”
“How would you contrast the country’s two popular movements, Radicalism and Peronism?”
“The Radicals and the Peronists share a lot of characteristics, many more than would make either, especially the Radicals, happy. There is no question in my mind—and it is a sub-theme of my recent book—that Peronism borrows heavily from Radicalism. In some ways that should not be surprising as Perón always claimed that he was carrying out the unfulfilled vision of Yrigoyen. Until fairly recently, I believed that this was just political rhetoric but I think he was partially correct. However the Argentina of 1944-1955 was a very different Argentina than the Argentina of 1916-1930. Argentina was much more urbanized, and industrialized. Also many fewer of the working class were foreigners and therefore could not vote.”
“And the parallels?”
“Where do I see the parallels? Both the Radicals and the Peronists saw themselves as the true representatives of the Argentine people and opposition was therefore almost traitorous. Both gave tremendous deference to their leader, Yrigoyen or Perón. Yrigoyen also saw the potential for building popular support by supporting labor unions, though Yrigoyen never wanted to make unions part of the state or the party, unlike Perón. Even the charity work (public support building) that Evita did had parallels to Yrigoyen. He always donated his salary to charity and made himself almost saint like. Obviously the Radical Party changes over time especially as it loses most of its working class base.”
“Why has the left been traditionally so dogmatic and splintered?
“I think that one needs to divide the question into two eras, pre and post 1945.
The easier portion to answer is the post 1945 period. The working class became Peronist and has remained so, leaving the left with a tiny base and no institutional reason to stay united. If one has a party that might win elections or unions that could provide an institutional launching pad, there are reasons to stay united. You might actually win or at least stand a chance of having a major impact. If that is not the case, you can afford to say I disagree with you on this or that issue or doctrine and go off on your own. The only time when the left was a major force post-1945 was in the late 1960s and the 1970s. This ran into the problem of how to fit Peronism into a leftist model when Peronism was originally not leftist. When Perón was still alive he could read the left out of the party when he no longer needed them, which he tried to do. One cannot of course forget the horrific actions of the military.
The pre-1945 situation is more complex. The left did suffer from a weak base. Electorally, the left was never able to build a sizeable base outside of Buenos Aires. The other problem was that so many of the working class were foreigners and could not vote. In addition, the Socialist Party was controlled by a small handful of men, many of whom were related through marriage and who had deep suspicions of ambitious men who had the ability to mobilize popular support. The best example of this is what happened to Angel Borlenghi, the long time head of the Empleados de Comercio, who was a skillful organizer and extremely popular and ambitious. He was a Socialist but he was never placed on an election list high enough to win, probably because he could not be controlled. He was later to become Perón’s minister of interior.”
“What about the Communist party?”
“The Communists suffered because their key leaders were men of Moscow and did the Kremlin’s bidding, constantly shifting positions and often ignoring local reality. The party was most successful when these key leaders, such as Codovilla, were out of the country, in Spain for example. Anarchism, while it had had real cultural roots and impacts in Argentina, seems to always fade as economies become more complex as well as having little tolerance for those who held different doctrines.”
“But in the labor movement things became a bit complicated…”
“Yes, certainly. If one looks at the labor movement the question is more complex. However, I think it is a myth that the natural state of a labor movement is to be united. If one looks at France, Italy or Spain one sees that their labor movements were not united either. Given the state of industrialization and the potential for upward mobility that existed in the Argentine society (at least in popular belief if not always in reality) the labor movement was probably quite large at least until the depression. After 1930 the number of industrial workers grew and the pace of unionization could not keep pace leading to the frustrations that help account for the rise of Perón.”
“The present world situation would appear to introduce an element of irony.”
“It is of course highly ironic that the U.S. and other “developed” countries after forcing others to adopt the Thatcher/Reagan model and also to take harsh medicine when it does not go well, are now adopting a very different policy that is Keynesian in its orientation. Some of us are also hoping that some of the promises that Obama made during the campaign on the environment, on providing health care, will actually be addressed. The U.S. health care system is clearly broken and whether Obama has the courage and the strength to address it only time will tell. Health care reform would do more for the poor quicker than any other measure. I also suspect that measures will be taken that trim away a small portion of the tremendous advantages that the rich have achieved under the Bush administration. The four hundred richest citizens now pay a much lower percentage of taxes on their income than do the average citizen. I suspect that the change will be somewhat marginal.”
“What direction will U.S. foreign policy take under President Barack Obama?”
“I think that US foreign policy will change rather sharply in the next few years. The preventive war mentality will end, I hope. That does not mean of course, unfortunately, a complete abandonment of interventionist policies but rather a major scaling back and recognizing the hubris of the Bush policies. Not only has the immorality of the policies but also their weaknesses made the US a much weaker country in 2009 than in 2001. The US has few friends and is over extended. Interventionism would be a hard sell politically. People are looking inward and are extremely tired of war.”
“What about U.S. ties with Latin America?”
“In terms of relations with Latin America, I have seen few clear statements from the Obama team but I suspect that it will be a low priority which is probably a good thing. I suspect and hope that the governments in Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia will be at worst ignored, seen perhaps as a low grade irritant. I think that most of the restrictions on contact with Cuba that can be removed by presidential decree will be. Others will need acts of congress which will be harder to get. However, recent polls even in Florida among Cuban Americans indicate support for wider contact with Cuba. Change in relations with Cuba will come. After all, the current policies are older than Obama.”
“Argentina?”
“Relations with the Argentina, Brazil and Chile probably will have a very low priority. I suspect the Obama administration will have more tolerance for what in North America is seen as less than orthodox behavior. Trade policies are harder to make guesses about. There will be no new free trade treaties in the immediate future, but I do not see major reversals in what already exists. What most likely will happen is that there will be an attempt to wiggle around portions of many of the existing agreements. As the recession deepens and unemployment worsens there will be pressure, especially from Obama’s allies, labor and the left in general for some types of protectionism. But I suspect most of the changes will be around the edges. If things get too bad who knows. Certainly the Wall Street types are those who have favored free trade in the US and to put it mildly they are unpopular at the moment. The only place that a major shift is likely to occur is in immigration policies. Obama’s government is likely to try to establish some sort of amnesty for illegals and try in some way to soften the draconian anti-immigrant policies of the Republicans and Bush. Obama’s victory was in part owed to the Latino population which has been turned against the Republicans by xenophobia.
Contact: jhorowit@sbu.edu
